Lawyers’ regulation by JFSC ’not in the interests of the community’
Business Brief July 2008
The regulation of Jersey’s legal profession by the Financial Services Commission is not in the interests of the Island’s community, says the new president of the Jersey Law Society, Advocate Charles Thacker.
Advocate Thacker, a partner in Viberts law firm, made his remarks on the eve of a series of seminars organised by Viberts to train local lawyers in new anti-money laundering practice.
New restrictions on the way lawyers work came into effect on May 1 in the form of a Money Laundering Order under the Proceeds of Crime Law. It is the latest of a number of measures being introduced in advance of an official visit to Jersey later this year by the International Monetary Fund. The measures are intended to ensure that the Island has the legal framework required by the IMF to comply with standards on combating international money laundering.
Although the Order is now in force, the power to regulate lawyers has not yet been delegated by the States. It is currently anticipated that the regulatory authority will be the Jersey Financial Services Commission. This might be a convenient response in the short term but should not be seen as a long term solution, claims Advocate Thacker.
Viberts have arranged for Matthew Moore – a leading authority on law firm compliance issues based in England - to conduct the seminars. An English solicitor by background Matthew is the author of an authoritative compliance guide to the equivalent provisions in the UK, and has taken an interest in moves in Jersey to bring itself into line with international requirements. He supports Advocate Thacker’s view, saying: ’Maintaining the rights of individuals relies heavily on maintaining a wholly independent legal profession. This independence could not be guaranteed if local lawyers were to be regulated by the Commission, most obviously if a client needed representation in a claim against the Commission.’
Advocate Thacker explained: ’It could be difficult for lawyers, particularly if they work in the smaller practices that typically tend to represent individuals rather than large commercial organisations, to prejudice their relationship with their regulator by embarking on legal proceedings against that regulator. The risk is that in time, individuals would find it harder to find a lawyer prepared to represent them if they had a grievance against the Commission.’
In England and Wales the regulating authority for anti-money laundering measures is the Law Society’s regulatory arm – the Solicitors Regulations Authority. Lawyers’ professional bodies are similarly responsible for regulating individual members in other large jurisdictions. In small jurisdictions such as Jersey, however, the profession could be seen as being too small to establish this administration. A solution, says Mr Moore, would be for small jurisdictions to group together to form a suitable body of lawyers to regulate their profession, suggesting that Jersey could perhaps join with Guernsey for these purposes.